A scheduling and pre-trial order has been issued by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Apple v. Epic court case, laying out the milestones for discovery and submissions of expert testimony prior to the trial date of May 3, 2021.

This is somewhat earlier than what court watchers had initially anticipated, which was sometime in July of next year, and while the date has been set, the exact length of the trial has not. In the scheduling order, Judge Rogers indicates the date chosen was determined by a number of factors, including “the Court’s anticipated jury trial schedule in the summer of 2021 given the backlog created by the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.” Judge Rogers also stated, “The Court will determine closer to the trial date whether the bench trial will be conducted in person or virtually or some combination thereof. Production of exhibits to the Court will be impacted depending on the resolution of this issue.”

Last week, and much to the surprise of many, both litigants requested the bench trial over the recommendation of Judge Rogers for a jury trial. A case management conference is set for October 19, where both parties will “meet and confer and formulate recommendations to streamline trial issues and briefing, including whether briefing on certain legal issues should be staged in advance of the trial.” Some of these issues will include related court cases against Apple which are making their own antitrust accusations against the company.

Food For Thought

There is one curious datum missing out of the scheduling order: the length of the trial. While the date itself has been set, the same field on the order also mentions length. If there’s no given length, it could mean Judge Rogers intends to spend exactly one day on this trial, or it could mean she intends to take her time to make sure the case is heard properly.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UnholyCircuit
UnholyCircuit
2 years ago

Personally I think Epic.com is in the wrong in all this and hope that Epic.com gets what is coming to them for wasting the courts time. I’m no Apple, Microsoft, Google, et cetera person. I’m a Linux person and even we have app centers, software centers, stores, or whatever you wish to call it on X Distribution. Though if you came to my store setup shop playing the rules to only break them and take me to court over breaking my EULA/ToS for my store I would be waiting to see you burn so to speak. Tim from Epic.com can be quiet the man child if you ask me, with all his crazy outbursts he’s had on spiteful Twitter posts and other related outcries.

(Disclosure: Adding “COM” to Epic in the aid of testing the WordPress spam filter for Gameluster.com admin. Four links in counting if counting Gameluster in this post).

GameLuster
GameLuster
2 years ago
Reply to  UnholyCircuit

Epic should have not changed the IAP and then cry foul to the courts. I personally do think Apple’s 30% is high as well as they have done deals with Amazon to charge 15%. Apple music does the same workaround on Android to avoid fees. I think Epic would have a better case if they didn’t break TOS knowingly that Apple. And thanks for the Assist UnholyCircuit !

UnholyCircuit
UnholyCircuit
2 years ago
Reply to  GameLuster

I am all for developers getting more for their work, but the way Epic is trying to tie this into that is laughable in my opinion. Because they broke the rules by putting in-game micro-transations. On a game that is full of children and kind of leads children down the gambling road. To the point kids bully each other over not having paid content. It really makes Epic look like their only shoehorning this whole “For the Devs” to try and back their reasoning of wanting more money through micro-transactions.

Then top all that off with purposely using their fans to complain about the developers cut. You’re making yourself look worse by rallying a mob. All over the said mentioned breaking of a ToS.

Third they claim duopoly and I’m totally against duopolies, but the phone market isn’t a duopoly in the stance of options. Linux phones exist like Librem 5 or PinePhone, Microsoft Phones existed, and you still have some lingering Ubuntu Touch phones on the market. Microsoft would have the same say, but if they backed Linux based phones Android could in theory run the game too. Since Android can be made to run some Linux software through emulation. (ChromeOS is even suppose to be getting the Linux version of Steam running sometime soon through their emulation software).

Also by backing a Linux phone it would give them 100% under the GNU License to make their own store and sell whatever they wish. Since GNU OS is pretty flexible when it comes to creating your own stuff. Heck make it free software based on the store and you would have more than just game developers flocking to it. Which could be a place to help even more developers that could in turn get their software emulated on Android.

Anyway, basically I see the whole “for the devs” as a scapegoat at best.

GameLuster
GameLuster
2 years ago
Reply to  UnholyCircuit

Yeah too me it sounded what Epic really cared about is forcing Apple for iPhones to have the ability for other app stores to be installed, and are using the popularity of Fortnite as well as the scrutiny that Apple is getting across the globe was the best time to strike.

I also agree developers should get more for their work. 30% makes sense on consoles because those are sold at a loss or razor thin margins usually, unlike phones and even more so on Apple. But it is Apple’s store, and should be allowed to operate as their liking. I disagree with the cut but Apple is within their right to charge that.

And yeah it’s not a duopoly. I think Epic should try to make their own Linux/Android phone with their app store.

UnholyCircuit
UnholyCircuit
2 years ago
Reply to  GameLuster

Consoles being sold at a loss is debatable, but yes I get where you’re going with it. Yet, being as consoles push pay-to-play gateways for multiplayer and are pushing the whole game streaming poop of a product now, well that 30% is debatable even more.

Specially on say a subscription based system that cost like 5USD and you gain access to a large library of games. Yes it’s lesser quality than on disc or digital downloaded, but you’re basically giving away their games. Which then cuts into their actual potential sales from retail. Buying from a place like GameStop would even be a step up most likely. Since GameStop does at least get a full copy purchased to sell in store new at one point.

I wouldn’t go as far as to tell Epic to make their own phones. As Linux alternatives are out there. Then just release on the Ubuntu Touch OS and just port the Epic Games Store right to Linux. (Which could kill two birds with one stone in way). Unless they wanted a Fortnite spin on the PinePhone which all they would need to do is talk with Pine 64. However, a simple case skin for the phone would be better for an investment if you ask me.

Then Epic could enforce their mob to buy a preexisting phone that isn’t that expensive either. The PinePhone Ubuntu Touch Edition is $149. It would be cheaper than a console and be around an acceptable price tag that kids could not break their parents banks. Because if Epic went into making a phone it would likely be much more expensive like 400-800USD due to R&D costs and other labor.

While having Epic Game Store ported to Linux they could just spend some of that Fortnite money to port other Epic Game exclusives to Linux. Now they get a phone market and a potential 4% desktop user marketshare (Since Linux as a whole does already support pretty much every architecture of CPU under the sun. I’m sure a translation layer or something would pop up fast for desktop users on x86). While being able to help aid in selling the PinePhone as sort of the “Epic Gaming Experience”.

Not only that the battery can be replaced with a standard Samsung J model battery. Which I would say makes it great for a parent if the battery goes expanding, so a simple run to just about any phone battery store and you’re back up and playing Fortnite or any of those games in no time for cheap.

At least that is what I would envision to be a much more cost effective and logical approach. Instead of causing a pointless battle that will end up blowing up in Epic and/or Tim Sweeney’s face. It might get you a few brownie points as if you’re a crusader fighting for justice, but at the cost of so much money that will likely never return. Since they can’t play ball with Apple in their proprietary system.

UnholyCircuit
UnholyCircuit
2 years ago
Reply to  GameLuster

Consoles being sold at a loss is debatable, but yes I get where you’re going with it. Yet, being as consoles push pay-to-play gateways for multiplayer and are pushing the whole game streaming poop of a product now, well that 30% is debatable even more.

Specially on say a subscription based system that cost like 5USD and you gain access to a large library of games. Yes it’s lesser quality than on disc or digital downloaded, but you’re basically giving away their games. Which then cuts into their actual potential sales from retail. Buying from a place like GameStop would even be a step up most likely. Since GameStop does at least get a full copy purchased to sell in store new at one point.

I wouldn’t go as far as to tell Epic to make their own phones. As Linux alternatives are out there. Then just release on the Ubuntu Touch OS and just port the Epic Games Store right to Linux. (Which could kill two birds with one stone in way). Unless they wanted a Fortnite spin on the PinePhone which all they would need to do is talk with Pine 64. However, a simple case skin for the phone would be better for an investment if you ask me.

Then Epic could enforce their mob to buy a preexisting phone that isn’t that expensive either. The PinePhone Ubuntu Touch Edition is $149. It would be cheaper than a console and be around an acceptable price tag that kids could not break their parents banks. Because if Epic went into making a phone it would likely be much more expensive like 400-800USD due to R&D costs and other labor.

While having Epic Game Store ported to Linux they could just spend some of that Fortnite money to port other Epic Game exclusives to Linux. Now they get a phone market and a potential 4% desktop user marketshare (Since Linux as a whole does already support pretty much every architecture of CPU under the sun. I’m sure a translation layer or something would pop up fast for desktop users on x86). While being able to help aid in selling the PinePhone as sort of the “Epic Gaming Experience”.

Not only that the battery can be replaced with a standard Samsung J model battery. Which I would say makes it great for a parent if the battery goes expanding, so a simple run to just about any phone battery store and you’re back up and playing Fortnite or any of those games in no time for cheap.

At least that is what I would envision to be a much more cost effective and logical approach. Instead of causing a pointless battle that will end up blowing up in Epic and/or Tim Sweeney’s face. It might get you a few brownie points as if you’re a crusader fighting for justice, but at the cost of so much money that will likely never return. Since they can’t play ball with Apple in their proprietary system.

UnholyCircuit
UnholyCircuit
2 years ago
Reply to  GameLuster

It looks like it happened again. Though, what triggered it this time. I don’t think I put links in the post. Yeah… One’s work is never done.